The Jordan Peterson Thread - The Architecture of Belief

[Open_Window]

I think Jordan Peterson is worthy of his own thread on the pin for the sheer effect and reach he’s having and to discuss any of the subject or topic he raises.

This interview around the Architecture of Belief, is fast and dense in a short space of time. For an average listener it might be hard to keep up as it requires concentration if you are not familiar with this form of discourse and subject matter.

It’s not hard to to understand Peterson at his normal podcast-pace as it feels more thoughtful where this Free Domain Radio interview is a more tour de force intro. So with these caveats in mind. Here you are and enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcEJr8h_yGM&t=276s

Personally think the Bible series is a worthwhile start especially as a podcast.

jordanbpeterson.com/bible-series/

Updated: Alternative Link to video

The Architecture of Belief | Jordan Peterson and Stefan Molyneux

[ps200306]

Devastatingly brilliant, OW.

Well … apart from Molyneux trying to deify free market capitalism as usual.

But brilliant, nonetheless. Have been following Peterson for a while. He’s my favourite atheist.

[Poacher]

Agreed.

This guy is excellent.

A breath of fresh air.

[Dubhgeannain]

Good shout. I’ve posted a couple of vids of his in the past on other threads but he deserves his own.

He’s been ruffling feathers’s for a while now.

In April 2017, Peterson was denied a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council grant for the first time in his career, which he interpreted as retaliation for his statements regarding Bill C-16. In response, The Rebel Media launched an Indiegogo campaign on Peterson’s behalf. The campaign raised $195,000 by its end on May 6, equivalent to over two years of research funding.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

[the_dude]

Devastatingly brilliant, OW.

Well … apart from Molyneux trying to deify free market capitalism as usual.

But brilliant, nonetheless. Have been following Peterson for a while. He’s my favourite atheist.

[dkin]

They are wrong on so many issues… starting with the idea of ‘individuality’.

It’s simply not possible to build a individualistic society. The free independent individual is a nonsense.

The ideological brainwashing we live in is inevitable however as it doesn’t suit the power interests to organise society as it should be organised as it tends to create potential rivals. So we will get increasing fragmentation into the future.

[Skippy_3]

He’s hard to agree with 100%.

But I love the way he links a lot of social phenomena to observed psychological patterns. People are different in their interests and abilities. This is measurable and helps to explain a lot of what we see in the world.

It sure makes a lot more sense then Marxism.

[Madness_of_Crowds]

I’m not convinced by one of his initial premises, that an assumption that the universe is meaningless (or at least finding no material evidence for any meaning) automatically leaves one “adrift and lost in an environment of nihilism and pain” (5’40"). I, for one, am entirely relaxed and unconcerned by the idea and don’t find it painful at all.

Edit: Actually, it seems to be full of throwaway assertions to which I simply can’t relate at all, such as howlers like these.

J.P: “As it gets harder for ambitious, aggressive young men to move up dominance hierarchies, they turn their temperament to violence”, S.M: “Society functions on the bribery of youthful testosterone… Getting married and having children are the two major things that manage male testosterone.” (29’10")

Um, nope. I am profoundly uninterested in my place in the social hierarchy and don’t even really know what it is (I’m sure I must have one, I’m just not very observant when it comes to such things).

I’m not sure what I’m supposed to learn from this, except that I’m happily abnormal.

[Open_Window]

He’s hard to agree with 100%.

But I love the way he links a lot of social phenomena to observed psychological patterns. People are different in their interests and abilities. This is measurable and helps to explain a lot of what we see in the world.

It sure makes a lot more sense then Marxism.

At the risk of derailing the thread to a nowhere place… but you have to wonder would how the likes of Marx(and maybe any one for that mater of past influence) would have survived the “market place of ideas” as Molyneux often puts it, how would his youtube channel or blog be received? I’m guessing similar to how you have expressed your sentimetns.

[Mossy_Heneberry]

‘I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words “zhe” and “zher.” These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.
I have been studying authoritarianism on the right and the left for 35 years. I wrote a book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, on the topic, which explores how ideologies hijack language and belief. As a result of my studies, I have come to believe that Marxism is a murderous ideology. I believe its practitioners in modern universities should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to promote such vicious, untenable and anti-human ideas, and for indoctrinating their students with these beliefs. I am therefore not going to mouth Marxist words. That would make me a puppet of the radical left, and that is not going to happen. Period.’

Brilliant.

I’ve only discovered him about three weeks ago, so I’ve a lot of catching up to do.

[ps200306]

Devastatingly brilliant, OW.

Well … apart from Molyneux trying to deify free market capitalism as usual.

But brilliant, nonetheless. Have been following Peterson for a while. He’s my favourite atheist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0O8Jw6grro

Wow. I’m fairly new to Jordan Peterson, so hadn’t seen that. He’s certainly the most Christian leaning atheist I’ve come across.

As an atheist leaning Christian, I could probably meet him in the middle.

[ps200306]

Actually, it seems to be full of throwaway assertions to which I simply can’t relate at all, such as howlers like these.

J.P: “As it gets harder for ambitious, aggressive young men to move up dominance hierarchies, they turn their temperament to violence”, S.M: “Society functions on the bribery of youthful testosterone… Getting married and having children are the two major things that manage male testosterone.” (29’10")

Um, nope. I am profoundly uninterested in my place in the social hierarchy and don’t even really know what it is (I’m sure I must have one, I’m just not very observant when it comes to such things).

But are you saying you don’t identify with the depiction, or that it doesn’t reflect the real world at all? Those are two quite different things. I doubt he’s saying the stereotype applies to all males. And I think you’ve probably let slip before that you’re not an “ambitious, aggressive, young man”. Personally, I am neither ambitious, aggressive, nor young (and probably never have been ). But I recognise the idea of marriage being a civilising influence on males as I have seen it in many of my acquaintances.

[Open_Window]

OW’s first encounter of Jordan Peterson was via the following video purely as a by-product of looking into the growing spectacle of the SJW’s hysteria online and following a link.

There was a similar event and video in Harvard or some similar institution around the same time.

Broadly there seemed to be camping and strategy across north America campuses to encourage such events and behaviour with faculty members who had or were perceived to have; and with some public profile or political activity, contrary views to the *Social Justice Rainbow Warriors (*term used not in the pejorative) programming of the day.

I could be wrong but quite ironically this video may have done more to increase Jordan Peterson reach and appeal at the time.

[Mossy_Heneberry]

I do agree with a lot that he has to say but he tweeted something ridiculous a few days back. He said, that you are not fully grown up unless you have children.

[rebelbuttmunch]

I do agree with a lot that he has to say but he tweeted something ridiculous a few days back. He said, that you are not fully grown up unless you have children.

Yeah, I think he referenced something like that in one of his videos. I suppose it hinges on his definition of ‘grown up’.

[Open_Window]

I do agree with a lot that he has to say but he tweeted something ridiculous a few days back. He said, that you are not fully grown up unless you have children.

Yeah, I think he referenced something like that in one of his videos. I suppose it hinges on his definition of ‘grown up’.

I don’t find the comment particularly strange nor do I your reaction in the rhetorical sense.

It’s generally accepted wisdom in society but particularly in traditional society even more so as an essential duty!

I’ve often heard stories of how one or all of a couple being seen to change for the better with the arrival of their first child, expressed as being “the making of them,” but with recent western society seeing a dramatic increase in adults without children, children with only one parent and many not in any form of long standing relationship let along married that perception is not as typically expressed or understood IMHO and is viewed with a lot of hostility. It hasn’t gone unremarked as to the childless nature of a lot of the current European heads of state.

I have noted Peterson often cites that there are typically three main events in peoples lives. Events which they do not forget that are formative seminal moments in their life with the birth of their first child being one of those three.

Another is Religious/Mystical experience and I’ve forgotten the other but I think it’s getting married but I’ll need to double check that one.

I think you’ll get a better feel for where he is coming if you listen to podcast No.2, Tragedy Vs Evil. I just so happened to listen to it today and he makes a nice observation point about how children introduces you to vulnerability and perfection in a very real and beautiful way and thus gives a deeper insight into what is essential a tweet.

If you’ve read Robert Anton Wilson (but original developed by Leary and similar if not a repackaging of the Chakras) becoming a parent is the 4th Circuit in Wilson’s analogy, though from the wiki you wouldn’t readily pick that up. If I remember correctly in Prometheus Rising Wilson has framed it in much simpler terms.

The next one after that become closer to transcendent as you go…

[Madness_of_Crowds]

Actually, it seems to be full of throwaway assertions to which I simply can’t relate at all, such as howlers like these.

J.P: “As it gets harder for ambitious, aggressive young men to move up dominance hierarchies, they turn their temperament to violence”, S.M: “Society functions on the bribery of youthful testosterone… Getting married and having children are the two major things that manage male testosterone.” (29’10")

Um, nope. I am profoundly uninterested in my place in the social hierarchy and don’t even really know what it is (I’m sure I must have one, I’m just not very observant when it comes to such things).

But are you saying you don’t identify with the depiction, or that it doesn’t reflect the real world at all? Those are two quite different things. I doubt he’s saying the stereotype applies to all males. And I think you’ve probably let slip before that you’re not an “ambitious, aggressive, young man”. Personally, I am neither ambitious, aggressive, nor young (and probably never have been ). But I recognise the idea of marriage being a civilising influence on males as I have seen it in many of my acquaintances.

The former, to be honest and I suppose the last few posts just reinforce my impression of how contentedly detached from the whole thing I am.

[the_dude]

life.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/jordan-peterson-and-the-transgender-wars/

Peterson’s thought-crime is that he disagrees with the view of transgender activists that gender is a social construct and has no grounding in biology (although he is not opposed to transgender rights in general). So why does his right to free speech trump a transgender activist’s right not to be offended? Why not just keep his thoughts to himself?

[Open_Window]

[Skippy_3]

I do agree with a lot that he has to say but he tweeted something ridiculous a few days back. He said, that you are not fully grown up unless you have children.

He’s kind-of right.

You can join the club if you’ve spent a lot of time caring for a sick relative.

Otherwise life is just one long series of doing what you feel like.